On July 28, 2017, the Defendant: (a) expressed a desire for the victim C (hereinafter “D convenience store”) in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, U.S. on July 28, 2017; (b) on the ground that the Defendant reported the case to another customer in front of the above convenience store on the ground that the Defendant reported the case to the police; and (c) on the front of the above convenience store, the Defendant saw the victim into a large amount of voice with the front door of the above convenience store; and (d) on the back of the entrance, the Defendant was unable to avoid a disturbance between 50 minutes, such as raising trial expenses.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the victim's convenience store business by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. The application of each Act and subordinate statutes to each investigation report (including additional data);

1. Relevant provisions of the law regarding criminal facts, Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act on the selection of punishment, reasons [the type of punishment] for the sentencing of punishment of imprisonment [the reasons for the suspended sentence] - Class 1 [the person subject to special sentencing] [the person subject to the suspended sentence] - [the scope of the recommended sentence] the mitigated area of punishment [the scope of the recommendation] - January or August [the main reasons for the suspended sentence] - The main reasons for the suspended sentence: the negative previous conviction of the same kind (not less than five years of suspended sentence] - The positive reasons for the suspended sentence are not positive punishment - general circumstances - the criminal records [the sentence] are more favorable for the defendant to have agreed with the victim at least two times, but there are many violences, and in particular, the defendant was committed during the suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor due to interference with the business at the time of the above case, which was sentenced to a fine by repeating the business during the suspended sentence period, but the crime in this case was committed at the same time, which is highly likely to interfere with the suspended from recidivism of imprisonment or a fine.

Determination shall be made in accordance with the order, taking into consideration the points determined.